Yes

No

Don&#039;t care

Mr Blair said in a TV interview with West Country ITV that if Britain wanted a leading presence on the world stage it would mean sending troops into dangerous places far away.

Given the state of our country I for one feel we should not be looking to achieve a leading presence. It would be better if we were looking to set leading standards on issues like Health, Global Warming, Human Rights and Development of Third World Countries.

Not sending troops into dangerous places far away just to support the ego's of pricks like Bush and Bliar.
Let's face it what has it achieved overall?

Has it removed the threat of terrorism No

Has it provided stability in Iraq or Afghanistan No

Has it provided world peace No

Has the leading presence in the world done anything for Britain Yes
It has spent a lot of the defence budget Who or what the feck are we defending.

My sentiments exactly Hawkeye. I'm no real lover of the French, but it has to be said, they are a leading presence in the world, but they largely protect their own interests. There seems to be something inherently wrong about trying to play the US's Deputy, policing the world, whilst our own house is in such shocking order.

I would suggest that we should not join the French under the surrender monkey banner, and that whilst protecting our own intersts as best we can we should at the same time take the front of the stage in the battle against injustice around the world, that does not mean we need to either join US crusades or go and bash peoples heads together as a matter of course but it does we have to be prepared to when it is the only answer.

I would suggest that we should not join the French under the surrender monkey banner, and that whilst protecting our own intersts as best we can we should at the same time take the front of the stage in the battle against injustice around the world, that does not mean we need to either join US crusades or go and bash peoples heads together as a matter of course but it does we have to be prepared to when it is the only answer.

Click to expand...

Nice Maxi however are we really in a position financially to do this. I agree that we should look after our own interests. So in that case we should be looking after the population of Zimbabwe which was part of the Empire rather than Iraq which was not.

There are many other ways in which we could project our country onto the world stage, that don't include putting troops in every corner of the globe. We should strive to be a nation of excellence in something other than the quality of our armed forces.

Don't get me wrong, our armed forces are the best in the world and we should maintain that, but do we always have to sacrifice them to prove it?

Slim is right too, we are not the world power that we used to be, but due to our British stiff upper lip the government seem to think that we are, solely due to that fact that no matter how stretched the forces are, they always pull it out of the bag and work miracles!!!

I would suggest that we should not join the French under the surrender monkey banner, and that whilst protecting our own intersts as best we can we should at the same time take the front of the stage in the battle against injustice around the world, that does not mean we need to either join US crusades or go and bash peoples heads together as a matter of course but it does we have to be prepared to when it is the only answer.

Click to expand...

Nice Maxi however are we really in a position financially to do this. I agree that we should look after our own interests. So in that case we should be looking after the population of Zimbabwe which was part of the Empire rather than Iraq which was not.

Click to expand...

I was deliberately non specific because what and where will always change, and whilst I would early like to see the demise of Mr Mugabe and his regime I think it needs more than just our willingness to enforce regime change there although I would agree it is needed and needed badly.

I think one of the clear lessons from both Afghanistan and Iraq is that regime removal is easy but the installation of a succesful new regime is the hard part, and also the really costly part. Any future attempts in this field do need far better plans than we have seen in recent years.

My sentiments exactly Hawkeye. I'm no real lover of the French, but it has to be said, they are a leading presence in the world, but they largely protect their own interests. There seems to be something inherently wrong about trying to play the US's Deputy, policing the world, whilst our own house is in such shocking order.

Click to expand...

Quote "The prime minister is expected to use a major speech in Plymouth today to say that the country needs to decide whether it wants to remain a major world power." UnquoteLink to Guardian article

We should maintain a strong military befitting our economic and historical standing in the world, but drop the interventionalist foreign policy. Our empire has been and gone and we have no right to be conquering foreign lands as a "pre-emptive" measure.

I agree that we should do what we can to retain a position in world affairs and we should be prepared to intervene militarily when it is appropriate, but that does not at the same time mean always joining in with the play ground bully.

Its getting a little boring all of this Blair and Iraq stuff.People seem to have short memories.Iraq was not complying to the weapons inspection mandate, they expelled all of the weapons inspectors(remember Hans blicks) .and Saddam had no proof of destroying all of Iraqs chemical, biological weapons.Do we just let them crack on and ignore everyone? Of course oil has something to do with it.What do you put in your car every week?water?. Its a massive massive issue and just because we live in a media world dont believe everything you read in the papers or see on sky.

Looking at the opinions here and how the votes are stacking, I think New Labour's work is done here. The plan has worked. Having dragged us in to one half needless war and another totally needless one, with no real political thought nor planning, the UK is now fed up with being a World Power. The aims of International Socialism achieved at a stroke. We will truly only need a UK Defence Force, especially if we keep our nuclear big stick.

We can now feel comfortable being further integrated with the wider European good life. The Russians can start rebuilding their power base because they are now our friends. China's not a threat and they do seem to make all the gadgets we like. Of course, joining the World second eleven means that we shouldn't be running the Commonwealth and we can give our place on the UN Security Council to one of those nice new developing countries. We are all so engrossed in our houses, popular entertainment, shiny gadgets and whatever else requires no responsibility that we no longer give a sod who and where shapes our destiny. The US would never let anything nasty happen to us. What's that old song? "rather be a hammer than a nail"? My how fashions change.

Of course we should, we are one of the wealthiest and most developed countries in the World! It would be outrageous should we take a back seat on World affairs and bloody irresponsible. Russia are developing their World standing, as are China as well as many previously considered 3rd World Nations while Europe sits back and saves money on Defence to waste it on bureaucracy. As long as we continue to increase reliance on overseas supplies of energy(oil and gas), food and the electronic goods we have become so reliant upon we will need to hold a political big stick within the worlds powerbase, not to do that would be naive.

Of course we should, we are one of the wealthiest and most developed countries in the World! It would be outrageous should we take a back seat on World affairs and bloody irresponsible. Russia are developing their World standing, as are China as well as many previously considered 3rd World Nations while Europe sits back and saves money on Defence to waste it on bureaucracy. As long as we continue to increase reliance on overseas supplies of energy(oil and gas), food and the electronic goods we have become so reliant upon we will need to hold a political big stick within the worlds powerbase, not to do that would be naive.

Its getting a little boring all of this Blair and Iraq stuff.People seem to have short memories.Iraq was not complying to the weapons inspection mandate, they expelled all of the weapons inspectors(remember Hans blicks) .and Saddam had no proof of destroying all of Iraqs chemical, biological weapons.Do we just let them crack on and ignore everyone? Of course oil has something to do with it.What do you put in your car every week?water?. Its a massive massive issue and just because we live in a media world dont believe everything you read in the papers or see on sky.

Click to expand...

Deeps - a little reality check for you here. Hans Blix and the UNSCOM teams carried out over 700 inspections and never found a damn thing. Scott Ritter an ex - US Marine and one of the lead inspectors stated publicly that Iraq had co-operated with UNSCOM to a very significant degree and blamed the US for deliberately provoking Iraq into removing the UNSCOM inspectors.

Cheney ran a determined campaign to attack Blix's credibility and simultaneously the US and UK were doing everything they could to undermine the UN position. Ritter / Blix / UNSCOM / UN all stated publicly that they believed that 98% of Iraq's weapons had been destroyed by 1995.

As late as last year Blix was stating that both the US and UK had been guilty of a lack of critical thinking and a failure to examine primary intelligence. He goes on to say that as late as February 2003 Iraq was still co-operating with UNSCOM. The USA were determined to attack Iraq for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with weapons inspections or democracy.

It is this sort of behaviour that has reduced Britain's standing in the world and it is inevitable that it will decline further.

I would suggest that we should not join the French under the surrender monkey banner, and that whilst protecting our own intersts as best we can we should at the same time take the front of the stage in the battle against injustice around the world, that does not mean we need to either join US crusades or go and bash peoples heads together as a matter of course but it does we have to be prepared to when it is the only answer.

Click to expand...

Nice Maxi however are we really in a position financially to do this. I agree that we should look after our own interests. So in that case we should be looking after the population of Zimbabwe which was part of the Empire rather than Iraq which was not.

Click to expand...

I agree that it makes more sense to be looking after Zimbabwe than Iraq. However a little history lesson. After WW1 we drew Iraq's borders (disregarding religious/tribal boundaries as normal) and put King Feisal on the throne. It was a protectorate in the empire. The religious/tribal civil war we're now seeing in Iraq is in some part our fault because we didn't pay attention to the locals when we drew up the borders

The ideal: Britain maintains a global presence... the reality - the British taxpayer is unwilling to finance it. The problem we face is that we have a Labour government that is good at talking about operations and pretending that they have provided the resources to carry them out, but, like the governments of Baldwin and Chamberlain, fail to provide those resources in practice - indeed are actually reducing them. The Conservatives are unlikely to provide the kind of investment needed by the Forces because of their existing commitments and their distant promise of more tax cuts when the money is available. That extra money that could close gaps in our defence and offensive capability is more likely to be returned to the taxpayer in the long run than invested in the Forces, although one would expect some degree of increased investment. The question is what degree and what would it actually be adquate for as against political ambition (read: ego)?

The Conservatives have distanced themselves from American foreign policy which may in the longer term have an unforseen effect upon diplomatic relations, despite more widespread disagreement and dissatisfaction within Congress with Bush's foreign and defence policy. This in itself may affect any future government's willingness (or ability) to act in the wider international sphere. Let us hope it doesn't arise.